Christopher Schurr trial discussion and updates...

Jury selection begins Monday in Christopher Schurr's trial for murder in the 2022 death of Patrick Lyoya.

The judge has ruled on a couple motions by the defense. One asked her to bar the use of certain "inflammatory language" on the witness stand. Such terms included "murder" and "execution." Their claim is that the terms are not only inflammatory but also undercut the purpose of the trial in the first place. A witness cannot know Schurr's state of mind and therefore cannot be competent to label his action an "execution." And "murder" is the charge they are there to prove -- to call it that is assuming the truth of the charge that is meant to be proven. The judge ruled she will not censor witnesses on the stand. I see both sides.

The other motion was to demonstrate taser use in front of the jury. The judge denied that motion as well. Bizarrely, she said she was denying it for the same reason she "wouldn’t allow someone to come in and shoot someone in the shoulder." That in itself is rather suggestive of the effect a taser can have on a person and serves to undermine the rationale of the prosecution that the taser was harmless. I'd look for any opportunity to use that quote in front of the jury. In the same ruling, the judge also barred the use of photographs of post-taser applications, including an injured eyeball. The judge ruled the photos would "only serve to inflame the emotions of the jury." This is in sharp contrast to her decision to not limit inflammatory language by prosecution witnesses a couple weeks earlier. Images of taser effects would be certain to illustrate valid concerns by Schurr regarding what Lyoya could do once Lyoya had gained control of the taser. It doesn't surprise me that she didn't allow the spectacle of a live taser demo, but images of the effects of improper taser application, particularly by persons not trained in its use, probably should have been allowed, especially considering the judge's disregard for possible inflammatory effects in other contexts.

One curveball remains that may yet upset the trial's scheduled start date next Monday: Schurr's appeal to the US Supreme Court was distributed for conference on the 17th of April. According to the Court's distribution schedule, however, it looks unlikely that the Court will interfere because cases distributed for conference on the 17th aren't discussed until after the trial's scheduled start date in the 28th of April.

Trial begins today at 8:30 AM Eastern. Links below to local live stream. Judge has ordered a 30 minute delay so coverage doesn't start until 9AM Eastern.

The judge is going to allow jurors to ask questions during the trial of the attorneys and witnesses.

I've never heard of such a thing.

Testimony of Lyoya's passenger is brutal. Strong accent combined with frequent trailing off at the end of an answer and not really answering the questions is agony to listen to.

Grizzly Adams said:

The judge is going to allow jurors to ask questions during the trial of the attorneys and witnesses.

I've never heard of such a thing.

Click to expand...

It isn't something that happens often, though it is allowed depending on the judge.

It was brought up when I was a juror by the judge but he said he didn't want jurors asking any questions in court.

Final witness of the day was the medical examiner. Seems like the prosecution is wanting to establish the fact that it was a contact shot, as if that's some kind of important detail.

Not much groundbreaking stuff in day 1.

Day 2 kicks off with a representative of Axon, the company who manufactured the Taser involved in the incident...

A couple points from Day 1...

The lead investigator from the Michigan State Police testifies about the Taser used, and how the Taser being used as a model in the courtroom differs from the Taser in evidence that was used in the incident: the model has no battery or cartridges "for safety purposes." I'm pretty sure that was the defense cross-examination.

"Do you know why the Taser we're using in court today doesn't have those functions?"
"For safety purposes."

I laughed when he said that. It's all building the groundwork.

Immediately after that question, the defense attorney proceeds to outline the legality of Taser possession in Michigan, the requirements to lawfully possess one, and then the fact that Patrick Lyoya's possession of the Taser would have been a felony offense because he did not meet the requirements to lawfully possess it.

A few moments later, the defense attorney confirms the commission of further felonies by Lyoya during the encounter:

More to come later today. I was unfortunately working yesterday and couldn't pay as much attention as I wanted. Today I'm about to pause my watching to go see Revenge of the Sith in a local theater on a 20th anniversary re-release...

Axon guy on Tasers under cross-examination: "It's designed to be less lethal but in the hands of a person who's not trained on it or someone who has ill intent it could be dangerous."

Defense questioning Axon rep again, confirming notes in the Taser instructional material provided by Axon:

Defense: "Axon, the manufacturer of this Taser 7 device, warns that it's a serious weapon and should be treated as such at all times, is that correct?"
Axon rep: "That's correct."
Defense: "Does the... do the Axon materials and warnings tell officers that the Taser is no longer dangerous after both cartridges are deployed?"
Axon rep: "No."

Axon's not doing the prosecution any favors, as the rep clarifies a previous answer to a defense question that a dart to the eye is not the only way the device can damage the eye; defense was going to move on to that point almost immediately after (because both dart cartridges had already been fired), but the rep offered it up all by himself.

Also: Axon guy's tie tab is a lightning bolt. Cute.

So long as they can establish Schurr believed Lyoya had control of the device and was in a position where he could possibly turn around, the Axon rep basically closed the case under cross:

Defense: “Sir, for the most part, everything you testified to as far as the Taser, how it's designed, the PowerPoint, is it fair to say, that's in the hands of a trained person?”

Axon rep: “Yes.”

Defense: “And Axon's, uh, classification of a Taser as a less lethal weapon, is that in the hands of a trained person?”

Axon rep: “Yes, there's a lot of caveats and warnings that need to be gone through and thought about during a deployment or even before deployment. So yeah, I would classify it, it's really built for a professional or a - for a person who's gone through training on that platform of weapon.”

Defense: “And I want to get to that training in just a moment here, but in the hands of an untrained person, would Axon market this as a less lethal weapon?”

Axon rep: “It's designed to be less lethal, but in the hands of a person who's not trained on it or someone who has ill intent, it could be dangerous.”

Click to expand...

...and...

Defense (referencing Axon training materials that instruct officers to avoid applying Tasers to certain areas): "Would an untrained person intuitively know to avoid these areas to potentially cause serious injury or death?"

Axon rep: "Uh, they would not." (Then clarifies the dart-to-the-eye answer as I described it above.)

Click to expand...

...and...

Defense: “All by itself, drive stun, that does not cause this NMI, this neuromuscular incapacitation by itself?”

Axon rep: “Uh, by itself, without probes, no, there's no NMI.”

Defense: “But the drive stun is very painful, is that fair to say?”

Axon rep: “Yes.”

Defense: “And does the drive stun run risk that it has the ability to immobilize someone?”

Axon rep: “Um, without probes deployed, there's no chance of NMI to immobilize through muscle, but it can temporarily jar someone, uh, because of the pain.”

Defense: “Sure. And depending on the person's condition, could that immobilize, the individual?”

Axon rep: “It could, temporarily.”

Defense: “Now, I think you already had mentioned the drive stun itself to sensitive areas. Have you ever been drive-stunned before?

Axon rep: “Yes, many times.”

Defense: “Has anybody ever deployed it against you?”

Axon rep: “Um. Yes, once.”

Defense: “Okay. Would you let somebody drive stun you in the eye?”

Axon rep: “Eye? No.”

Defense: “How about the throat?”

Axon rep: “Throat? No.”

Defense: “How about the genitals

Axon Rep: “Absolutely not.”

Defense: “Could it caused serious injury?”

Axon Rep: “Yes.”

Defense: “And just to clarify, that’s cartridges out of the equation, just this drive stun contact, correct?”

Axon rep: “Correct.”

Click to expand...

Oh, gee, even without darts and NMI the device can cause incapacitation, up to and including serious injury or death when used by someone who doesn't know how to use it properly? GOLLY GEE ****, WHO WAS SAYING EXACTLY THAT THREE YEARS AGO??

Grizzly Adams said:

The manufacturer says it is not designed to incapacitate. Presumably, this is especially true when used in the manner prescribed. See the bottom of this post for further discussion on this topic.
...
When Axon uses the term "incapacitation" in relation to the effects of their product, it refers to neuro-muscular incapacitation. If you were a cop, you'd know that. When "people" (aka: laypersons) use the term, it refers to an inability to effectively react or function, whatever the cause. When using drive-stun mode as prescribed, it is not designed to cause neuro-muscular incapacitation. Ever been drive-stunned in the face or neck? (If you were a cop, you'd know these were places that you should not intentionally drive-stun a person...) Seems like a person might consider that to be pretty incapacitating, even though it's not incapacitating in a neuro-muscular fashion. Try catching a drive-stun to your balls and see how effective you think you would be in responding to the doorbell, let alone to someone trying to take your gun.

Click to expand...

Huge day so far for the defense, and it's still the first witness!

When possessed by a person untrained in its use, Axon would not clasify the device as less-lethal:

Kablammo.

Testimony continues today with a witness from yesterday. Witness is discussing best practices. Witness has a problem with the lack of distance between Schurr and Lyoya when Schurr deploys his Taser. Great. But so what? Because Schurr makes a poor tactical decision he's now relieved of his ability to continue to effect an arrest or defend himself?

The prosecution has rested and the defense has moved for a directed verdict or a mistrial based on alleged prejudicial testimony of the last two witnesses:

"We believe that the evidence presented prejudices the defendant to the extent that the fundamental goals of accuracy, and fairness are threatened by allowing Mr. Stoughton and Mr. Bloomfield to opine on standards that are not applicable under Michigan law. As they both admitted, they don't know what Michigan law is and that are not within knowledge and in the situation of the arresting officer, based on tactical considerations that are not ultimately at issue in this case, including what everything that led up to the ultimate issue here, which, which is whether officer had an honest and reasonable belief to be in fear of having a great, serious bodily injury at the moment that he decided to use deadly force."

The strategy did not play out in their favor, as the judge denied both motions.

Judge is concerned with defense's video expert's testimony taking too long.

Shift supervisor that day describes Schurr as the supervisor arrived on scene:

Defense: "And when you saw Officer Schurr that day, what did you notice about him when you arrived?"
Timothy Johnston: "Complete exhaustion. He was bent -- like I said, he was sort of bent, hunched over you, hear him breathing -- even in his radio traffic, as I was approaching, you can hear his breaths, gasping for air."
Defense: "Okay. And what did that indicate to you?"
Johnston: "That he'd reached his physical limit. It reminded me of a... at the end of an Olympics sprint race or something you see the athletes afterwards with their hands-on their knees. Breathing hard."

Still building the case. Establishing physical exhaustion to justify the use of force -- even if one were to conclude Lyoya's possession of the Taser wasn't per se a threat of great bodily injury or death, the extended ground fight and physical exertion took enough of a toll on Schurr that he was rapidly losing his ability to prevent Lyoya from doing whatever he wished.

GRPD Captain, certified as an expert in the GRPD's use of force policy, identifies specific moments where Lyoya was assaultive, and that certain crimes Lyoya was committing were felonies...


Defense: "And at this point, once someone is under arrest, do you train GRPD officers that they can just let them go?"
Siver: "No, that is not common practice."
Defense: "Why not?"
Siver: "Because there is an inherent risk to the community."

The common wail, mumbled by many here, that Schurr should have just let Lyoya go was not a tactic trained by the GRPD. Contrary to yesterday's stuffed shirt "expert" on officer-created jeopardy, Siver states there is nothing unreasonable about giving chase when there is another person involved (such as the passenger in this case).

Time stamp 7:15:57
Defense: "Pursuant to GRPD policy and training, is it your opinion that Officer Schurr was reasonable in pursuing Mr. Lyoya at this point in a foot chase?"
Siver: "Yes."
Defense: "Even though there was someone else still occupied in the car?"
Siver: "Yes."

I can't help but notice there were so many people here talking about this case three years ago and how it was such a slam dunk that Schurr was a cold-blooded killer who have nothing at all to say anymore...

This part was important because it's establishing the danger in the middle of the ground fight that is then transferred to the very end, where Lyoya is in this "tabletop" position again and has exclusive control of the Taser:

Defense: "And you mentioned a tabletop position, can you explain what that is and what... what that means for the officer?"

Siver: "Yes, so um, the subject on their hands and knees, think of a toddler crawling, right? That position is what we refer to as a tabletop position. It's a very strong position if you don't want to be moved. You have - your limbs are kind of shortened, you have all your power in an inside position, I call it - you're tight. It's challenging to do defeat that and being... like riding on somebody's back right there, if I'm trying to put all my weight on, it's easy to roll that or reverse that situation where the top position now becomes the bottom position. Yeah, it's a, it's a dangerous situation."

Defense: "From the... sorry, the last segment of the video that we just saw zoomed in, what did you observe about Mr. Lyoya, when he was on the ground in that prone position? ?

Siver: "Just that he was able to get back to a standing position with relative ease regardless of what the officer is attempting to do."

Click to expand...

Some people liked to claim it was preposterous that Lyoya was a threat with the Taser while in this position because he would have to "pass a taser through his own body" to get to Schurr. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about disagrees.

Siver on cross is basically being berated because his department's policy doesn't conform to whatever standard the prosecutor wished it did. What relevance this has to Schurr's actions is beyond me.

Day 2 of deliberations. Jury claimed they were deadlocked already. Judge told them to get back in there and get to work. Defense tried for a recusal by the judge for bias, as she was observed to be rolling her eyes during Schurr's testimony. Unsurprisingly, she denied the motion.

The fact they claim to be already deadlocked is not a good sign. I don't understand, after watching significant parts of the trial, how anyone can come to the conclusion Schurr should be imprisoned for what he did. All the prosecution has is stuffed shirts talking about vague "generally accepted police practices" that they like but say Schurr didn't follow. But those "generally accepted police practices" aren't the standard by which Schurr should be judged -- he should be judged on the GRPD use of force policy and his training, not some ivory tower standard of which he was never made aware or trained to follow. The defense, on the other hand, has multiple people, from GRPD and elsewhere, testifying that standard training is for Schurr to assume that a person who takes one of your weapons intends to use it against you and, given the totality of circumstances, Schurr acted reasonably. They have the prosecution's own witness from Axon stating the Taser would be considered a dangerous weapon in the hands of an untrained person. I'm willing to be swayed by anything anyone can present from testimony that suggests Schurr did something wrong, but I don't hold out high hopes.

If someone thinks the policy or training allows for excessive force, that's a discussion for them to have with GRPD leadership. Chris Schurr did what he was trained to do in the situation that unfolded before him. As far as I'm concerned at this moment, anyone who can't see reasonable doubt isn't considering the evidence before them and has an agenda they are trying to push.

Disgraceful.

Still deliberating.

Also forgot to mention the last-minute addition of manslaughter as an option for the jury. Defense objected but the eye-rolling judge overruled them. This never made sense to me, even though it happens regularly. A guy is charged with a crime and goes to trial, disputing elements of the crime for which he is charged. THen, when everyone is done with their arguments, a different charge is levied against which the defendant presented no case because that wasn't the crime for which he was on trial. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

Mistrial due to hung jury. Eager to learn how many morons were holding out for a guilty verdict.

No retrial for Schurr after deadlocked jury results in mistrial.

While it's a good thing Schurr won't be forced to continue paying lawyers to defend him from charges resulting from actions that every single officer from Schurr's department said were reasonable and in line with his training, it's also unfortunate that this charge remains dangling over his head. A not guilty verdict means they can't retry him. The mistrial outcome leaves Schurr perpetually subject to retrial, as murder has no statute of limitations in Michigan.